Budget authorised to keep Shuttle flying through 2011

[Urwumpe]

You rarely get technological innovation with government programs, because governments have a near-infinite amount of taxpayers' money to throw at technical problems: hence the 'brute force' approach of the Saturn V, which no commercial entity would have built for a lunar landing.

That is all plain wrong - it is the other way around. Most innovations and boring basic research are done by government research agencies, like NASA. And that not only in the past and that not only because the government was able to throw more money at it.

The reason is plain risk management. When a company, even a large one, attempts a technical innovation, it takes a risk. The innovation might not work, or there are problems which can't be solved in acceptable time. For a company, this means a loss of money, and often the existence. So, companies will be very careful and work in small conservative steps. They will not do basic research, if they can avoid it, because it takes decades from basic research to the final product. Of course the basic research is needed - but it is hard to justify. Especially to shareholders, who think in quarters, instead of decades.

That does not apply to government R&D centers. In this case, the company is the whole economy. And the whole economy shall benefit. Of course, you take market pressure away from the companies and the pace is slower in government research centers. But it is the best practice.

If you would privatize basic research, only the biggest companies could afford it, and only with a small amount of effort. The small companies would be even more punished, despite these being more innovative when it comes to implement basic research. You don't want to destroy these small companies - you want more of them. Today, basic research innovations in government R&D centers are typically marketed by founding spin-off companies. These don't exist for all eternity and are subject to the normal mechanisms of the market - but they form some sort of doping for the economy, by bringing new experts.

 

[Moonwalker]

The old dreams of hotels on the moon and lots of planes and travel in space...

But what would life be without pipe dreams

PS: It is not realy NASA or anybody else who is preventing commercial space flight. Why don't airlines seriously ask Boeing to develope space planes for example? Because it is nonsense and unpayable anyway. And not even to mention Concorde-like air travel...

Some people have to come back down to ground of stone cold reality. Even in 2009.

 

[T.Neo]

Some people have to come back down to ground of stone cold reality. Even in 2009.

Which reality? Everyone seems to have a differant take on "reality"...

 

[RisingFury]

Which reality? Everyone seems to have a differant take on "reality"...

Another reason why Marijuana shouldn't be legalized

 

[T.Neo]

Another reason why Marijuana shouldn't be legalized

What? I'm not on Marijuana.

 

[Moonwalker]

Which reality? Everyone seems to have a differant take on "reality"...

People witness the same situation in a different way and have different perceptions. But that doesn't take away the fact that its still one situation and the same world including its history and the present we all live in and have to adapt to. I would not ask "which reality" if we start talking about 9/11 or the Holocaust for example...

 

[simonpro]

Super! The cash cow can continue to fly!
I wonder how many of NASA's useful science programmes will get cut because of this.

 

[Andy44]

Super! The cash cow can continue to fly!
I wonder how many of NASA's useful science programmes will get cut because of this.

A cash cow is something which makes you money, not consumes it. I guess it's a cow for the people who work on the program, though.

 

[tblaxland]

I wonder how many of NASA's useful science programmes will get cut because of this.

The budget authorisation is in addition to the current budget so, none. That said, I'm not that cognisant of how the American system works - does the presidential administration still get to revise this?

 

[Hielor]

The budget authorisation is in addition to the current budget so, none. That said, I'm not that cognisant of how the American system works - does the presidential administration still get to revise this?

Well, actually, it will take budget from Constellation. As I understand it, once STS ended, NASA would continue at it's same total budget, but the amount that was going for STS would be instead used for Constellation.

 

[eveningsky339]

A cash cow is something which makes you money, not consumes it. I guess it's a cow for the people who work on the program, though.

They cheerfully called it a flying brick... They assured us that it was safe and cheap...

They lied.

The Anti-Cow

 

[tblaxland]

Well, actually, it will take budget from Constellation. As I understand it, once STS ended, NASA would continue at it's same total budget, but the amount that was going for STS would be instead used for Constellation.

Oh well, that's alright then - more time for CxP to be hoist by its own petard :dry:. Anyway, that is not how the article linked in the OP read, nor these ones:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20090429/NEWS02/904290329/1006/NEWS01
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28071

[FONT=geneva,arial,verdana][SIZE=-1]The conference agreement matches the President's request for NASA in 2010 (while acknowledging that an additional $400 million was appropriated for NASA exploration in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and provides $2.5 billion above the President's request in 2011[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

More info coming to light:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/nasa-present-two-shuttle-extension-options-to-lawmakers/

 

[tblaxland]

More info coming to light:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/nasa-present-two-shuttle-extension-options-to-lawmakers/

Hmm, I think these two things have unrelated (or loosely related) motives. The article you linked to relates to reducing "the gap" by adding additional missions to the manifest. The article from the OP relates to only granting the required time extension to complete the current manifest in the event of unforeseen delays. Either way, an interesting read, thanks

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

My 2 cents:

You need $4.7bn to extend the Shuttle to 2012. So, cancel the $3.5bn CRS (Commercial Resupply Services) contract with Orbital and SpaceX, then you only need another $1.2bn to extend the Shuttle to 2012.

If we chose the extend the Shuttle to 2012, and taking into account that the ISS has Progress, ATV, and HTV at it's disposal, do we really need the CRS?

What I would like to happen, in the idealistic world:
I would like to see Orion fly as early as 2013/2014, by utilisation of either the DIRECT proposal, or the EELV proposal. I would then like to see a return to the Moon by 2019, either through use of the Jupiter 232, or Ares V. I think that international partners should team up to get things moving (i.e instead of the U.S, Russia, and ESA each developing their own manned spacecraft and launcher, why not team up to design one together, although still launch independently)? I agree with extending the ISS's operational lifetime through 2020.

What will actually happen, in the real world:
Orion will not fly until AT LEAST 2016, maybe later, IMHO. That leaves a 6 year gap where the U.S has no means of reaching the ISS by its own accord. In this time, the U.S will be paying Russia and private companies to fly crew/cargo to the ISS. So, either bring Orion forward by utilising other launchers (which is unlikely to happen, now that metal has already been cut for Ares), or extend the Shuttle. In the ideal world, I would say no to Shuttle extension. But, we do not live in an ideal world. The challenge now is to find a way forward using what we currently have to work with, in terms of budget, timelines, capability, and practicality. So if the Shuttle can be extended to 2012 safely, affordably, and without seriously impacting other programs, then why not do it? (I would be against extending to 2015, as this would seriously impact the Constellation program, IMHO). I do not particularly think that Shuttle extension is the most ideal approach, but, at the current time, it is the most practical/affordable/timely way to ensure future access to space.

What do you think? (I'm sure saying this will spark off a huge, international debate, with many ideas/opinions. But, that's why I LOVE O-F!!!)

 

[Pquardzvaark]

Just for clarification, CRS is just for resupply, and COTS is for crew? Isn't the $1 bn difference in cancelling CRS and extending the Shuttle even less because NASA won't have to buy as many (or any, depending on the number of flights) seats on Soyuz?

I like this, if it can reduce the gap, and maybe since it keeps the Shuttle infrastructure around longer is can make something like DIRECT more likely, no? Hell, the extra cost might force NASA to consider an alternative to their current course of action.

 

[tblaxland]

Just for clarification, CRS is just for resupply, and COTS is for crew? Isn't the $1 bn difference in cancelling CRS and extending the Shuttle even less because NASA won't have to buy as many (or any, depending on the number of flights) seats on Soyuz?

COTS has four capability levels, the highest of which (COTS-D) is crew transportation. The current CRS contracts are for COT-A & B, IIRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services

@Pete, you think 4 years without any (ie, cargo and crew) US access to the ISS is better than 6 years with no crew access, just cargo access? I guess that is a political decision but I think you would want to make sure your (ie, US) international statesmanship was up to scratch before committing to such a scenario...

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Another oservation of mine regarding the aforementioned article:

If the Shuttle is extended, then the ISS's PMA will be needed for the Shuttle's APAS docking system, which means that it will not be able to be turned over the CxP.
However, the APAS-LIDS adapter is now unlikely to be flown to the ISS on Orion, due to clearance issues with Ares I's fairing.

BUT, in my opinion, there are in fact a number of options:

1) CxP could proceed with developing a new CBM-LIDS interface, to be flown to the ISS aboard the Shuttle.

2) We could revive good o'l PMA-3, and fly an APAS-LIDS adapter for it to the ISS aboard the Shuttle.

3) Why not replace the APAS interface on the Shuttle's ODS, with a LIDS interface? That way, an APAS-LIDS adapter could be placed on PMA-2, and again, flown up on the Shuttle.

Key:

PMA = Pressurised Mating Adapter. The docking adapter between the ISS's CBM, and the Shuttle's APAS. Has a CBM on one side, and an APAS on the other.

CBM = Common Berthing Mechanism. The attachment system for the ISS's modules (not Shuttle).

APAS = Androgynous Peripheral Attachment System. The docking system between the ISS's PMA's and the Shuttle's ODS.

LIDS = Low Impact Docking System. The next generation docking system, to be used on Orion.

ODS = Orbiter Docking System. The docking system used on the Shuttle, to mate the Shuttle with the PMA. Currently uses APAS.

---------- Post added at 03:11 ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 ----------

Pete, you think 4 years without any (ie, cargo and crew) US access to the ISS is better than 6 years with no crew access, just cargo access? I guess that is a political decision but I think you would want to make sure your (ie, US) international statesmanship was up to scratch before committing to such a scenario...

Hmm. Good point. Let's hope Obama can fix all, regarding international statesmanship!

 

[Andy44]

Let's hope Obama can fix all, regarding international statesmanship!

Oh my, we are in trouble.

 

[Hielor]

Oh my, we are in trouble.

Can't be any worse than the last guy...